TIMOTEA PANCHO AMPARADO, APPLICANT-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.
GARCIA-FERNANDEZ, J.:
Juan Pancho Alburo was the owner of a residential property identified as Cadastral Lot No. 3041 located at Piot, Sorsogon with a total area of four hundred ninety-four (494) square meters.[1] On August 16, 1952, Juan Pancho Alburo executed a Deed of Donation Inter Vivos over the property in favor of his children Escolastica Pancho, Felicitas Pancho, Belen Pancho, Asuncion Pancho and applicant-appellee Timotea Pancho Amparado.[2] On August 16, 1971 and November 27, 1976, Escolastica, Felicitas, Belen and Asuncion sold their undivided shares of the said property to applicant-appellee as evidenced by two Deeds of Absolute Sale of Realty of even dates.[3] On November 22, 1987/February 19, 1990, Escolastica and applicant-appellee executed another Deed of Absolute Sale of Realty, where the former bought back a 98.8 square-meter portion of the said property from the latter.[4] Consequently, what remained with applicant-appellee is the 395-square meter portion of the property originally owned by her father and now subject of the present appeal.[5]
In January 2007, a Geodetic Engineer Peter Jumamil conducted a survey to segregate the 98.8 and 395 square meter portions from the original 494-sq. meter property. The survey plan under Csd-05-016565-D prepared by Jumamil was under the name of Escolastica Pancho. Later, Escolastica Pancho executed an affidavit attesting that the approved survey plan under Csd-05-016565-D was for applicant-appellee.[6]
On October 9, 2007, applicant-appellee filed an application praying for registration and confirmation of title to the subject property.[7] Finding the application to be sufficient in form, the RTC issued an order on November 26, 2007 giving due course to the application and directing applicant-appellee to furnish the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), Provincial Prosecutor, Land Registration Authority (LRA), Regional Director of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) with copies of the application and its annexes. The RTC also directed the posting of notices of initial hearing at designated places and the publication thereof in the Official Gazette and newspaper of general circulation.[8]
On December 7, 2007, the OSG entered its appearance as counsel for the Republic, and deputized the Office of the City Prosecutor of Sorsogon to appear on its behalf.[9]
On April 25, 2008, the RTC conducted an initial hearing.[10] Thereafter, applicant-appellee presented evidence ex parte, i.e., testimonies of Eng. Peter Jumila Eng. Federico Fabellano of the DENR-CENRO and applicant-appellee herself; and documentary evidence, to wit:
1. Exhibit “A” – Application of Land Registration
2. Exhibit “B” – Tax Declaration No. 7354 in the name of Juan Pancho
3. Exhibit “C” – Deed of Donation Inter Vivos dated August 16, 1952 executed by Juan Pancho
4. Exhibit “D” – Deed of Absolute Sale of Realty dated August 16, 1971 executed by Felicitas, Belen, Escolastica and Asuncio all surnamed Pancho in favor of Timotea Pancho
5. Exhibit “E” – Deed of Absolute Sale of Realty dated November 27, 1976 executed by Escolastica Pancho
6. Exhibit “F”- Deed of Absolute Sale of Realty dated February 19, 1990 executed by Timotea Pancho Amparado in favor of Escolastica
7. Exhibit “G” – Deed of Renunciation of Rights Over Property by Escolastica Pancho dated December 9, 1989
8. Exhibit “H” – Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property executed by Timotea Pancho in favor of Escolastica Pancho on October 22, 1987
9. Exhibit “I” – Affidavit executed by Escolastica Pancho dated March 22, 2007
10. Exhibit “J” – Agreement executed between Marina Balin and Timotea Pancho Amparado dated March 22, 2007
11. Exhibits “K”, “K-1” to “K-5” – Real Property Field Appraisal and Assessment Sheet and Tax Declaration in the name of Timotea Pancho Amparado
12. Exhibit “L”, “L-1 to “L-8” – Real Property tax receipts in the name of Timotea Pancho Amparado
13. Exhibit “M” – Polyester Plan of Lot No. 8217 Cad-192 of Sorsogon Cadastre
14. Exhibit “N” – Technical description of the property
15. Exhibit “O” – Surveyor’s Certificate for Registration dated August 13, 2007
16. Exhibit “P” – Certification from the DENR-CENRO that the property is not covered by any public land application
17. Exhibit “Q” – Real Property Field Appraisal and Assessment Sheet in the name of Mark & Jeffrey Chua, owners of adjacent property
18. Exhibit “R”, “R-1” to “R-7” – Real Property Field Appraisal and Assessment Sheet in the name of Eduarda Villadolid Ayo, owner of adjacent property
19. Exhibit “S” – RTC Order dated November 26, 2007 giving due course to the application and setting the date of initial hearing on April 25, 2008 20. Exhibit “T” – Notice of Appearance of the OSG
21. Exhibit “T-1” – OSG delegation of authority to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Sorsogon
22. Exhibit “U” – Notice of Initial Hearing issued by the LRA
23. Exhibit “V” – Certificate of Posting by the RTC Sheriff of Sorsogon
24. Exhibit “W” – Certificate of Publication by the National Printing Office
25. Exhibit “X” – Affidavit of Publication by Sorsogon Newsweek dated February 24, 2008
26. Exhibit “X-1” – Order as published in the February 24, March 2-9, 2008 issue of Sorsogon Newsweek
27. Exhibit “X-2” – Order as published in the March 2-8, 2008 issue of Sorsogon Newsweek
28. Exhibit “X-3” – Order as published in the March 9-15, 2008 issue of Sorsogon Newsweek
29. Exhibit “Y” – Affidavit of Publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing by the editor of Sorsogon Newsweek on March 13, 2008
On March 31, 2009, the RTC issued the appealed decision finding that applicant-appellee sufficiently established her title over the subject property. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the title of the applicant, TIMOTEA PANCHO AMPARADO over the property plotted and described as Lot 8217, Cad-192 of Sorsogon Cadastre, with its technical description, containing an area of THREE HUNDRED NINETY FIVE (395) SQUARE METERS, together with all the improvements existing therein, be CONFIRMED and REGISTERED pursuant to the Property Registration Decree (P.D. 1529).
Once this DECISION becomes final and executory, let the corresponding decree issue.
SO ORDERED.”[11]
On April 24, 2009, the oppositor-appellant filed a notice of appeal.[12] In this appeal, oppositor-appellant assigns the following errors to the RTC:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE APPLICATION FOR LAND REGISTRATION DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE APPLICANT TO COMPLY WITH THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF SERVICE OF NOTICE TO ADJOINING LANDOWNERS; and,
II.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE APPLICATION FOR LAND REGISTRATION DESPITE FAILURE OF THE APPLICANT TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.[13]
First, oppositor-appellant contends that applicant-appellee failed to present evidence to show that notices of initial hearing were sent to adjacent landowners, thus, there was non-compliance with jurisdictional requirements of a land registration case. Second, oppositor-appellant contends that applicant-appellee failed to substantiate her claim of ownership over the subject property, specifically, that she or her predecessor-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, notorious possession and occupation of the same since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
The appeal is meritorious.
P.D. No. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree specifies who are qualified to apply for registration of land. In particular, Sec. 14(1) and (2) thereof in relation to Sec. 48(b) of Commonwealth Act 141, as amended by Sec. 4 of P.D. No. 1073, states:
SEC. 14. Who may apply. —The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance [now Regional Trial Court] an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives:
(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12,1945, or earlier.
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provisions of existing laws.
x x x x
Section 48. The following described citizens of the Philippines, occupying lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed, may apply to the Court of First Instance [now Regional Trial Court] of the province where the land is located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of title therefor, under the Land Registration Act, to wit:
x x x x
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier, immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.
Based on the foregoing legal parameters, applicants for registration of title under Section 14(1) must sufficiently establish: (1) that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain; (2) that the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same; and (3) that his possession has been under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.[14]
Foremost, before an applicant can adduce evidence of open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the property in question, he must first prove that the land belongs to the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. This requisite is based on the Regalian doctrine that all lands of the public domain pertain to the State and that the latter is the foundation of any asserted right to ownership in land. Accordingly, the State presumably owns all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership. To overcome such presumption, irrefutable evidence must be shown by the applicant that the land subject of registration has been declassified and now belongs to the alienable and disposable portion of the public domain.[15]
This Court finds no competent evidence on record to prove that at the time of application for registration, the subject land has been declared alienable and disposable by the Secretary of the DENR or the President, and that it is no longer intended for public use, public service or for the development of the national wealth as provided under Art. 420 and 422 of the Civil Code.[16] While the survey plan of the subject property may have stated “that this survey is inside the alienable and disposable area under Project No. 1 per LC Map No. 589, certified by the Director of Forestry on March 30, 1926,” applicant-appellee failed to submit a copy of the original certification issued by the DENR-CENRO.[17] Without such proof of an express declaration, applicant-appellee has not sufficiently overcome the burden of proving the alienability of the land subject of the application.[18]
Moreover, applicant-appellee failed to present competent evidence to prove that she or her predecessor-in-interest has been in possession and occupation of the subject property since June 12, 1945 or earlier. The deed of donation and tax declaration no. 7354 in the name of her predecessor-in-interest Juan Pancho Alburo failed to prove the validity of applicant-appellee’s cause or substantiate the length of time of possession and occupation prescribed by law. Her testimony consisted mostly of statements on how she acquired the undivided shares of her siblings over the original property after they inherited the same from Juan Pancho Alburo in 1952 with no specifics as to how or when the latter began occupying the land. Notably, the earliest tax declaration presented, i.e, tax declaration no. 7354 was issued in 1966. In Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic of the Philippines, it was ruled that the period of possession and occupation, which was open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious since June 12, 1945 or earlier, must be proven, otherwise, the land cannot be considered ipso jure converted to private property notwithstanding the subsequent declaration that it is alienable and disposable land.[19] A person who seeks the registration of title to a piece of land on the basis of possession by himself and his predecessors-in-interest must prove his claim by clear and convincing evidence. General statements which are mere conclusions of law and not factual proof of possession are unavailing and will not suffice.[20]
In view of the foregoing, a discussion on the issue of lack of notice of initial hearing to adjacent landowners is unnecessary.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon dated March 31, 2009 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition for registration of title of applicant-appellee Timotea Pancho Amparado in Land Registration Case No. 2007-N-364 is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Tijam, N.G., Chairperson, and Lopez, M.V., JJ., concur.
[1] Record, p. 5.
[2] Id. at pp. 6-10.
[3] Id. at pp. 11-13; and pp. 14-15.
[4] Id. at pp. 18-19; pp. 16-17.
[5] Id. at pp. 26-29.
[6] Id. at pp. 38 & 22.
[7] Id. at pp. 1-4.
[8] Id. at p. 51.
[9] Id. at pp. 66-67.
[10] Id. at p. 112.
[11] Id. at pp. 238-243.
[12] Id. at pp. 244-245.
[13] Rollo, p. 24.
[14] Republic of the Philippines vs. Belmonte, G. R. No. 197028, October 9, 2013.
[15] Republic of the Philippines vs. Ching, G.R. No. 186166, October 20, 2010.
[16] Heirs Of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179987, April 29, 2009.
[17] Exh. “M”, Record, p. 38.
[18] Republic of the Philippines vs. Jose Ching, G.R. No. 186166, October 20, 2010.
[19] Note 16.
[20] In Re: Application for Land Registration of Title Fieldman Agricultural Trading Corporation, represented by Kam Biak Y. Chan, Jr., vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 147359, March 28, 2008.